19 ms·

Microsoft is company. It will do anything(ofc legal) for money. They knew where the market exist,so embraced Linux. They wanted to prevent migration of windows

Microsoft is company. It will do anything(ofc legal) for money. They knew where the market exist,so embraced Linux. They wanted to prevent migration of windows users to MacOS/Linux ,so created WSL2 which lured many MacOS users. It also added DirectX for WSL2 , which is proprietary extension. It based it's edge browser on chromium because they were lagging behind chromium wrt performance. They want profit. So,they do these things. Some actions benefit floss while some don't. Problem of capitalist company. They care about capital more than us.

frozenport 6y ago
No, for example Microsoft will not produce a product in an unrelated market. Microsoft is unlikely to open a sandwich franchise no matter how much money can be made.
rootsudo 6y ago
The whole point of a business is to become a money machine.
- brnt 6y ago
  In the Anglosaxon model. E.g. the Rhineland model not only shareholders are regarded as stakeholders, and thus a company had a duty to its community, starting with its workers (worker council).
joshsyn 6y ago
Problem? Thanks to Microsoft and other capitalist companies for revolutionizing the way we do computing today.
- techntoke 6y ago
  Microsoft didn't revolutionize anything, they've always just bought the competition (manufacturers, developers, etc) but had to adopt Linux when that stopped working and Linux was winning without having to pay people because the Linux community cares more about progress than profit.
- anonymou2 6y ago
  What would have happened if Richard Stallman had decided to go work for a capitalist company and just worried about making money?
  - joshsyn 6y ago
    I think linux on the desktop would be been better story. My point is without Microsoft we wouldn't be where we are today. We'd be lagging far behind. Apple being the only competition, would probably still be selling Apple 2.
    - joshsyn 6y ago
      Why is it that Linux is always playing catch-ups with device drivers, KDE, GNOME, wayland to be on par with Windows or Mac equivalent? Cause there are lack of resources, how many people want to invest their time for nothing in return? Very less.
      - anonymou2 6y ago
        You value your freedom very little, if you think that it means nothing.
        joshsyn 6y ago
        Poor logic. I never said I don't value Linux or freedom. Last time I checked, nobody dictates what you use. I don't understand why making profits is shunned as such a problem? And takes away your freedom? You are free to not use products from companies you don't like. Trust me I do value Linux, currently typing this from my Ubuntu machine. I hope it speeds up in development, but without the proper incentive, it simply is not happening. Only companies I see in the desktop space are valve at the moment who have vested interest on the gaming aspect. I don't think every developers are going to say kumbaya and develop for Linux without getting any kind of financial support. O.o
        anonymou2 6y ago
monoclechris 6y ago
Let me guess, you have a solution and it looks a lot like socialism.
virtue3 6y ago
I think the edge -> chromium move was more about compatability than performance. Edge was fine. They couldn't keep up with the evolving web standards. Also pre-chromium edge has friggin the WORST DEV TOOLS EVER. You would get "generic js error" whenever you had a javascript error thrown. It was untenable as a developer. Theyre releasing dX on linux so they can stay relevent in the gpu space. Being able to use a windows driver for your linux install is pretty clutch considering what a cluster that has been . I'm generally giving them the benefit of the doubt because they really didn't have to do -any- of this, and still make money.

frozenport 6y ago

No, for example Microsoft will not produce a product in an unrelated market. Microsoft is unlikely to open a sandwich franchise no matter how much money can be made.

rootsudo 6y ago

The whole point of a business is to become a money machine.

brnt 6y ago
In the Anglosaxon model. E.g. the Rhineland model not only shareholders are regarded as stakeholders, and thus a company had a duty to its community, starting with its workers (worker council).

joshsyn 6y ago

Problem? Thanks to Microsoft and other capitalist companies for revolutionizing the way we do computing today.

techntoke 6y ago
Microsoft didn't revolutionize anything, they've always just bought the competition (manufacturers, developers, etc) but had to adopt Linux when that stopped working and Linux was winning without having to pay people because the Linux community cares more about progress than profit.
anonymou2 6y ago
What would have happened if Richard Stallman had decided to go work for a capitalist company and just worried about making money?
- joshsyn 6y ago
  I think linux on the desktop would be been better story. My point is without Microsoft we wouldn't be where we are today. We'd be lagging far behind. Apple being the only competition, would probably still be selling Apple 2.
  - joshsyn 6y ago
    Why is it that Linux is always playing catch-ups with device drivers, KDE, GNOME, wayland to be on par with Windows or Mac equivalent? Cause there are lack of resources, how many people want to invest their time for nothing in return? Very less.
    - anonymou2 6y ago
      You value your freedom very little, if you think that it means nothing.
      - joshsyn 6y ago
        Poor logic. I never said I don't value Linux or freedom. Last time I checked, nobody dictates what you use. I don't understand why making profits is shunned as such a problem? And takes away your freedom? You are free to not use products from companies you don't like. Trust me I do value Linux, currently typing this from my Ubuntu machine. I hope it speeds up in development, but without the proper incentive, it simply is not happening. Only companies I see in the desktop space are valve at the moment who have vested interest on the gaming aspect. I don't think every developers are going to say kumbaya and develop for Linux without getting any kind of financial support. O.o
        anonymou2 6y ago

monoclechris 6y ago

Let me guess, you have a solution and it looks a lot like socialism.

virtue3 6y ago

I think the edge -> chromium move was more about compatability than performance. Edge was fine. They couldn't keep up with the evolving web standards. Also pre-chromium edge has friggin the WORST DEV TOOLS EVER. You would get "generic js error" whenever you had a javascript error thrown. It was untenable as a developer. Theyre releasing dX on linux so they can stay relevent in the gpu space. Being able to use a windows driver for your linux install is pretty clutch considering what a cluster that has been . I'm generally giving them the benefit of the doubt because they really didn't have to do -any- of this, and still make money.